Skip to main content

Post‐probe decision making in a prison context

Buy Article:

$55.00 plus tax (Refund Policy)

If a listener becomes suspicious during a conversation, and asks questions (probes) of a speaker, the listener tends to judge the speaker's message as honest. This result has been termed the probing effect (McCornack, Levine, Aleman, Oetzel, & Miller, 1991). This study hypothesized that an untested decision-making phenomenon, an opposite probing effect, or a post-probe tendency to judge a message as deceptive, might occur when lie-biased individuals judge statement veracity. Prison inmates and non-inmates participated in dyads as judges and speakers. Speakers watched a video, and then lied or told the truth to judges. Judges covertly showed thumbs up or down before asking questions, and subsequently made post-probe judgments. Findings indicate that inmates use heuristic processing to a greater extent than non-inmates, and that inmates, surprisingly, exhibit a probing effect, and not an opposite probing effect, when heuristic processing is employed to decide message veracity.
No Reference information available - sign in for access.
No Citation information available - sign in for access.
No Supplementary Data.
No Data/Media
No Metrics

Keywords: Deception; Heuristics; Lie‐biased; Probing effect; Reversed probing effect

Document Type: Research Article

Publication date: 2004-09-01

  • Access Key
  • Free content
  • Partial Free content
  • New content
  • Open access content
  • Partial Open access content
  • Subscribed content
  • Partial Subscribed content
  • Free trial content
Cookie Policy
Cookie Policy
Ingenta Connect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more